The Bill of Rights - which amendment would you repeal?

[reprise]

I came across a thread with this topic on the SDMB (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=219325) and found the discussion so interesting that I thought I'd like to hear which of the amendments to the US Constitution comprising the Bill of Rights JREF's US posters would repeal if for some arbitrary reason they had to vote for the repeal of one of the amendments which codify their rights.

[Tony]

16th amendment.

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by Tony
16th amendment.

Heh, try again. Key phrase is "Bill of Rights."

[Tony]

Originally posted by Wolverine


Heh, try again. Key phrase is "Bill of Rights."

$hit!! In that case, I wouldn't repeal any of them.

[Yahweh]

I dont think any rights need to be repealed, but I think the Second Amendment borders on paranoia:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

[Nyarlathotep]

I don't often say this, but I agree 100% with Tony on this question. I wouldn't repeal any of the Bill of Rights. They are the most important tools we have for keeping ourselves a free people. Tyranny creeps in when our lawmakers circumvent or ignore the bill of rights.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
Tyranny creeps in when our lawmakers circumvent or ignore the bill of rights.
Don't worry about the lawmakers, the courts will simply redefine the rights out of existence. If it can happen to the 2nd Amendment, it can happen to the rest you know.

[reprise]

So is there any amendment people would like to see added to the Bill of Rights?

[Tony]

Originally posted by WildCat

Don't worry about the lawmakers, the courts will simply redefine the rights out of existence. If it can happen to the 2nd Amendment, it can happen to the rest you know.

I agree, however, the lemmings would have you believe that such an attitude is paranoia.

[peptoabysmal]

7 is a bit out of date. A jury trial over $20.01, LOL.

And, no, the second amendment isn't going away :p

[michaellee]

Let's see.....officially repealing one of the first 10 amendments.......
What difference would it make if any of the following were "legally" repealed??----

Amendment II
...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

ever heard of gun control?
#2 is currently disregarded

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Ever had the pleasure of federal agents, without cause or supported warrant break your door down? Or perhaps the I.R.S.?

#4 is currently disregarded

Amendment V

...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;...

The Internal Revenue Service, without a court order, without any charges filed let alone a conviction, seizes property on a daily basis.

#5 is currently disregarded

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Need I comment on the above two amendments? OK- my right to to do and act however I wish in the privacy of my own home as long as I do not infringe on other's rights- oh oh.. why there must be 2000 federal laws on the books dictating what I cannot do in the privacy of my home.... OK- how many federal laws, programs, and beauracracies can we count that are not delegated power by the Constitution?

#'s 9 and 10 are currently disregarded

My list includes half of the ten bill of rights amendments, #'s 2,4,5,9, and 10. Anyone wish to comment on #'s 1,3,6,7, and 8?

So my choice is........already been made by those we elected and those they appointed.......... might as well dump the whole thing, for in todays political climate, the only time we hear about advocates of the Constitution is when they are labeled anti-American, or far right-wing, or the ACLU..........

[michaellee]

originally posted by reprise
So is there any amendment people would like to see added to the Bill of Rights?

Yes, most definitely! I propose Amendment # 6.66, regarding the following two sections of the Constitution:

Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Article. VI, Section III of the U.S. Constitution:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution;


Amendment #6.66 could state:

"If any elected official, after affirmation or oath is taken, either speaks out against any part of the Constitution; or disregards it through any action, vote, creation of law, or in any manner; as determined by the people; shall immediately be removed from office, indicted and charged with treason, and if convicted, be put to death by public hanging within 24 hours without cause to appeal."

Sounds good to me!

[LFTKBS]

Originally posted by michaellee
Amendment #6.66 could state:

"If any elected official, after affirmation or oath is taken, either speaks out against any part of the Constitution; or disregards it through any action, vote, creation of law, or in any manner; as determined by the people; shall immediately be removed from office, indicted and charged with treason, and if convicted, be put to death by public hanging within 24 hours without cause to appeal."

Sounds good to me!

No! Bad poster! Speaking out against the Constitution is a fundamental right of the people and their representatives; to set the Constitution in stone is a greater tyranny than the passage of the USA PATRIOT Act. I like the part about disregarding it though vote or creation of law, though.

[michaellee]

originally posted by LFTKBS
No! Bad poster! Speaking out against the Constitution is a fundamental right of the people and their representatives; to set the Constitution in stone is a greater tyranny than the passage of the USA PATRIOT Act. I like the part about disregarding it though vote or creation of law, though.

Say what? Is there an echo in here? Is there disagreement as to what ..."preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" and
"shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution"
mean as written in the above posted Articles of the Constitution?
Granted, speaking out is a fundamental right of the people, but unless the definitions of preserve, protect, defend and support now include "speaking out against" in their list of synonyms, all elected and appointed government officials SWEAR under affirmation and oath to NOT do so! Why the hell would we want to elect any candidate who does not support the Constitution? Did I fall asleep and wake up in some foreign country?

And I said nothing about setting the Constitution in "stone".

[reprise]

Of course if elected representatives hadn't spoken out against the short-comings of the existing Constitution, the amendments which now comprise the Bill of Rights would never have been passed...

[rustypouch]

Although I am not from the States, I do not see gun control as a violation of Second Amendment rights.

I read the words "well regulated" as implying some sort of control, as if someone should be deciding what types of guns are allowed and who should have access to them.

[michaellee]

I read the words "well regulated" as implying some sort of control, as if someone should be deciding what types of guns are allowed and who should have access to them

The "well regulated" refers to a militia. Read the following taken from:

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms
REPORT
of the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION
of the
UNITED STATES SENATE

NINETY-SEVENTH CONGRESS

Second Session
February 1982

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary


...
When the first Congress convened for the purpose of drafting a Bill of Rights, it delegated the task to James Madison. Madison did not write upon a blank tablet. Instead, he obtained a pamphlet listing the State proposals for a bill of rights and sought to produce a briefer version incorporating all the vital proposals of these. His purpose was to incorporate, not distinguish by technical changes, proposals such as that of the Pennsylvania minority, Sam Adams, or the New Hampshire delegates. Madison proposed among other rights that

"That right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

In the House, this was initially modified so that the militia clause came before the proposal recognizing the right. The proposals for the Bill of Rights were then trimmed in the interests of brevity. The conscientious objector clause was removed following objections by Elbridge Gerry, who complained that future Congresses might abuse the exemption to excuse everyone from military service.

...

I believe the words and their writer's intentions were to ensure peaceful, law abiding citizens the right to keep and bear arms, without restriction. And before mis-stating the "militia" meaning, I suggest reading the entire report the paragraph above was taken from. It's contributors include:
CHARLES McC. MATHIAS, Jr., Maryland
JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware
PAUL LAXALT, Nevada
EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts
ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah
ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
ROBERT DOLE, Kansas
HOWARD M. METZENBAUM, Ohio
ALAN K. SIMPSON, Wyoming
DENNIS DeCONCINI, Arizona
JOHN P. EAST, North Carolina
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa
MAX BAUCUS, Montana
JEREMIAH DENTON, Alabama
HOWELL HEFLIN, Alabama
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania

Anyone interested in further reading- I will post a link if you wish

[reprise]

I'm aware the Bill of Rights as it was originally proposed contained 12 amendments and that the ones which were actually adopted and ratified were amendments 3-12. Does anyone have any idea what the original amendments (1 and 2) which weren't adopted and ratified referred to?

[michaellee]

Does anyone have any idea what the original amendments (1 and 2) which weren't adopted and ratified referred to?

One was about the number of constituents for each elected Representative and the other was about how much Congressmen were to be paid for their service.

[AmateurScientist]

Excellent posts, Michaellee.

Don't you know that the Bill of Rights contains mere technicalities? That's what we hear all the time when a criminal defendant is acquitted at trial or has his case dismissed or not prosecuted due to a violation of his rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Those people beat the rap on mere technicalities or legal loopholes.

Or, and the ACLU is just a bunch of anti-Americans trying to keep us from acknowledging God in our own homes.

:D

AS

[Ladewig]

Amendment #6.66 could state:

"If any elected official, after affirmation or oath is taken, either speaks out against any part of the Constitution; or disregards it through any action, vote, creation of law, or in any manner; as determined by the people; shall immediately be removed from office, indicted and charged with treason, and if convicted, be put to death by public hanging within 24 hours without cause to appeal."

Much as I would like to see congress critters advocating amendments against flag burning, amendments insisting that God appear in the Pledge of Allegiance, and amendments allowing non-native born citizens to run for president¹ to be smacked upside the head, I am not prepared to go along with this suggestion.

After all, under this law, prohibition would never have been repealed. :eek: Also, some might interpret the law to prevent discussion of balanced budget legislation (XIV sect 4).


________________________

1. Senator O. Hatch (R - Utah) introduced this amendment on July 10th with these remarks:

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Equal Opportunity to Govern'' Amendment, which would amend the Constitution to permit any person who has been a United States citizen for at least 20 years to be eligible for the Office of President. The Constitution, in its current form, prohibits a person who is not a native born citizen of the United States from becoming President.
[snip]

The purpose of the native born citizen requirement has long passed, and it is time for us--the elected representatives of this Nation or immigrants--to remove this impediment.
[snip]

This restriction has become an anachronism that is decidedly un-American. Consistent with our democratic form of government, our citizens should have every opportunity to choose their leaders free of unreasonable limitations. :rolleyes:

[Luke T.]

I would like to see an amendment setting term limits for Congress, just like there are term limits for the President. Politics was not intended to be a career. Incumbents have over a 90 percent chance of being re-elected. I believe this causes them to lose touch with their constituents.

It used to be that political office did not have an allure. It was not a path to great wealth. Something has gone awry.

Now there are actual retirement plans for Congressmen! Very good retirement plans. Not to mention other avenues of income that open up to them. It is obscene.

[phildonnia]

Originally posted by reprise
So is there any amendment people would like to see added to the Bill of Rights?

I'd move #9 up to #1. It's almost the shortest amendment, yet it says the most.

If I absoultely had to repeal one, I think that #3 is probably the least relevant to preserving freedom in our current culture.

[Luke T.]

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.


Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.


Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.


Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.


Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Just in case anyone needs them for reference.

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by phildonnia


I'd move #9 up to #1. It's almost the shortest amendment, yet it says the most.

If I absoultely had to repeal one, I think that #3 is probably the least relevant to preserving freedom in our current culture.

Well, Amendments Three and Nine are perhaps the least litigated ones, and the least relevant in actual practice.

Despite Nine's apparent import, it has been taken to be merely a rule of construction, and not one which actually gets invoked much.

I've never heard of any litigation involved or invoking the Third Amendment. I suspect it was infringed upon in many instances during the American Civil War.

AS

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist


Well, Amendments Three and Nine are perhaps the least litigated ones, and the least relevant in actual practice.

Despite Nine's apparent import, it has been taken to be merely a rule of construction, and not one which actually gets invoked much.

I've never heard of any litigation involved or invoking the Third Amendment. I suspect it was infringed upon in many instances during the American Civil War.

AS

When the Bill of Rights was proposed, there were some who felt it was unnecessary. These rights were assumed to be implied. They worried by enumerating certain rights, then the reverse implication would be assumed. Thus, the ninth amendment.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by michaellee
Ever had the pleasure of federal agents, without cause or supported warrant break your door down? Or perhaps the I.R.S.?


Yes, the IRS breaks my door down every year, yelling "IRS - don't move!!!" because I keep forgetting to include my SSN on my 1040. The bastards don't even pay for the door or frame damage. Once, because of the IRS breaking my door down, I had to replace the frame because it was coming out of the wall. While working on it, I put sheet plastic across the opening, and they even broke that down! :mad:

[Wolverine]

Well, I wouldn't want to repeal any of the Bill of Rights; but for purposes of this exercise, I'll play along.

I'd repeal the 3rd.

With the current state of our military, hell I'll put some up for a while and feed them some decent meals for a change.

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by Luke T.


When the Bill of Rights was proposed, there were some who felt it was unnecessary. These rights were assumed to be implied. They worried by enumerating certain rights, then the reverse implication would be assumed. Thus, the ninth amendment.

Thanks, Luke, that's exactly what I meant by "it's a rule of construction." It's used to construe the overall meaning of the other amendments and their effects. There simply hasn't been any litigation about it because it's not a substantive right.

AS

[phildonnia]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist

...
Despite Nine's apparent import, it has been taken to be merely a rule of construction, and not one which actually gets invoked much...


It's true, but sad. We really need it there for when people like Robert Bork say "I don't see 'right to privacy' anywhere in the constitution"

I suspect most people think that the Bill of Rights is the source of their rights. The "Schoolhouse Rock" jingles probably perpetuate this idea. Bu the ninth uses the curious phrase "retained by the people" (versus "granted to the people") to describe the allocation of rights.

[Schizobunny]

I wouldn't repeal any of them, but our government seems to be using the Bill of Rights as toilet paper lately and if this continues our descendents are really not going to be happy with the tyranny they recieve.

[reprise]

As an outsider, I find the Grand Jury provision within the Fifth Amendment a scary one - primarily because the powers of Grand Juries are so extensive AND their deliberations are conducted in secret; they seem to be a power unto themselves, accountable to no-one. While I can see that in a situation where prosecutors and judges are elected it makes sense to have some checks and balances in the indictment process, I truly can't understand why anyone would support that process not being public and transparent.

[michaellee]

originally posted by Joshua

Yes, the IRS breaks my door down every year, yelling "IRS - don't move!!!" because I keep forgetting to include my SSN on my 1040. The bastards don't even pay for the door or frame damage. Once, because of the IRS breaking my door down, I had to replace the frame because it was coming out of the wall. While working on it, I put sheet plastic across the opening, and they even broke that down!


A simple "NO" perhaps? You wouldn't be mocking those law abiding citizens who have had the feds break down their doors without cause, would you?;)

[epepke]

Originally posted by reprise
As an outsider, I find the Grand Jury provision within the Fifth Amendment a scary one - primarily because the powers of Grand Juries are so extensive AND their deliberations are conducted in secret; they seem to be a power unto themselves, accountable to no-one. While I can see that in a situation where prosecutors and judges are elected it makes sense to have some checks and balances in the indictment process, I truly can't understand why anyone would support that process not being public and transparent.

I support it's not being public and transparent, as it protects the rights of the accused. Effectively, the only thing a grand jury can do is prevent an indictment that a prosecutor wants to make already.

First of all, the standards for admissible evidence are looser for a grand jury. Of course, they could be tightened up, but then it would be just like having a trial, which would be about like having no grand jury at all. Any prosecutor could rake anyone through the public mud, pretty much at whim. And if you don't loosen the standards of evidence, then there's no protection against the prosecution's using evidence that was obtained illegally and having this made public. And if you decide that it's OK to present evidence obtained illegally, that's just more of a police state.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by michaellee
A simple "NO" perhaps? You wouldn't be mocking those law abiding citizens who have had the feds break down their doors without cause, would you?;)

I would be, but I might not if I had some actual examples instead of nebulous references to jack-booted thugs.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by Ladewig


Much as I would like to see congress critters advocating amendments against flag burning, amendments insisting that God appear in the Pledge of Allegiance, and amendments allowing non-native born citizens to run for president

What is the objecting to allowing American voters to choose if they want a non-native born citizen as President?

Don't you trust the electorate?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner

I would be, but I might not if I had some actual examples instead of nebulous references to jack-booted thugs.
Well duh! Are you forgetting the most famous case of jack-booted thuggism? That poor Al Capone fellow had his door broken down and was dragged away to prison for tax evasion.

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by Luke T.
When the Bill of Rights was proposed, there were some who felt it was unnecessary. These rights were assumed to be implied. They worried by enumerating certain rights, then the reverse implication would be assumed. Thus, the ninth amendment. And here we are today with the worst aspects of both possibilities.

It is interesting to note in this discussion that the "rights" in the Bill of Rights come in different forms, and with different effect. For example, right to jury trial in civil cases does not mean all trials can be jury trials, but just the types of cases that were given jury trials at the time the Constitution was adopted. Notice that the language does not say that there shall be a right to jury trial, but rather than the right shall be preserved. They are talking about the right as understood by their contemporaries. That's the way it is interpreted, and seems consistent with the intent.

In contrast, when they created the right of religious freedom, they did not "preserve the right" but created an absolute and new right by binding Congress with affirmative language.

[michaellee]

originally posted by Unrepentant Sinner
I would be, but I might not if I had some actual examples instead of nebulous references to jack-booted thugs.
originally posted by Tricky
Well duh! Are you forgetting the most famous case of jack-booted thuggism? That poor Al Capone fellow had his door broken down and was dragged away to prison for tax evasion.

Tricky, ;)

Sinner- Although Capone and other "famous" persons experiences provide 'actual examples', the majority of the non-nebulous references (easily provided but you will dismiss them regardless) to actual cases involve the average, innocent, law abiding citizen; these are rarely reported by the media; and speaking from personal experience, as well as the experiences of close friends and family members, this activity occurs more frequently than you could probably imagine.

[shuize]

Originally posted by phildonnia


It's true, but sad. We really need it there for when people like Robert Bork say "I don't see 'right to privacy' anywhere in the constitution"

I suspect most people think that the Bill of Rights is the source of their rights. The "Schoolhouse Rock" jingles probably perpetuate this idea. Bu the ninth uses the curious phrase "retained by the people" (versus "granted to the people") to describe the allocation of rights.

I understand your point. But I also appreciate the argument that the Court really shouldn't be leveraging the "right to privacy" to create whatever new fundamental rights it finds fashionable. Keep in mind that the creation of a new fundamental right has the additional consequence of restricting the authority of the citizenry to voice their views through legislation.

Take the recent Lawrence v. Texas decision for example and the newly created fundamental right to engage in sodomy. I say "new" because the Court considered that very issue in 1986 and held it not to fall within the "right to privacy." Bowers v. Hardwick -- (Really, that was his name -- Who ever said the law is an ass? Sometime it amuses the hell out of me.)

Not that the sodomy question itself is very important. (Everyone can sodomize their brains out for all I care) But freewheeling Justices who sit as a super-legislature deciding for themselves what is and is not acceptable absent any sort of historical guide is a bit irritating.

And here's my question for any aspiring constitutional scholars out there: Since Lawrence was argued on both equal protection (the Texas statute prohibited only homosexual sodomy) and substantive due process (privacy) grounds, why didn't the Court follow its own rules of avoiding large constitutional questions (such as creating new fundamental rights) when unnecessary for the resolution of the case and boot the statute on the narrower equal protection issue?

[Thumper]

Originally posted by Luke T.
I would like to see an amendment setting term limits for Congress, just like there are term limits for the President. Politics was not intended to be a career. Incumbents have over a 90 percent chance of being re-elected. I believe this causes them to lose touch with their constituents.

It used to be that political office did not have an allure. It was not a path to great wealth. Something has gone awry.

Now there are actual retirement plans for Congressmen! Very good retirement plans. Not to mention other avenues of income that open up to them. It is obscene.

Can I chime in here? This is crap. (Sorry, Luke.)

This country is extremely complex. Here are the options: 1. Keep things as they are. Allow the voters to decide who to represent them. Allow the elected Congressmen to be held responsible for the workings of the government. 2. Create term limits. Reduce the expertise of Congressmen. Put the power in the hands of the unelected bureaucrats.

It makes no sense to me to put amateurs in Congress. To pass term limits is to essentially say, "You've been here 12 years. You know how to get things done. You are qualified to be a Congressman. You're fired."

As an example, look at the states that have passed term limits on their state legislators. It is a mess. Give me professionals everytime. Give me elected officials actually running things. Give me the ability to vote for the person I feel can best do the job.

And, yes... I do think the Amendment to limit presidential terms is a bad thing.

[billydkid]

Originally posted by michaellee
Let's see.....officially repealing one of the first 10 amendments.......
What difference would it make if any of the following were "legally" repealed??----

Amendment II
...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

ever heard of gun control?
#2 is currently disregarded

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Ever had the pleasure of federal agents, without cause or supported warrant break your door down? Or perhaps the I.R.S.?

#4 is currently disregarded

Amendment V

...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;...

The Internal Revenue Service, without a court order, without any charges filed let alone a conviction, seizes property on a daily basis.

#5 is currently disregarded

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Need I comment on the above two amendments? OK- my right to to do and act however I wish in the privacy of my own home as long as I do not infringe on other's rights- oh oh.. why there must be 2000 federal laws on the books dictating what I cannot do in the privacy of my home.... OK- how many federal laws, programs, and beauracracies can we count that are not delegated power by the Constitution?

#'s 9 and 10 are currently disregarded

My list includes half of the ten bill of rights amendments, #'s 2,4,5,9, and 10. Anyone wish to comment on #'s 1,3,6,7, and 8?

So my choice is........already been made by those we elected and those they appointed.......... might as well dump the whole thing, for in todays political climate, the only time we hear about advocates of the Constitution is when they are labeled anti-American, or far right-wing, or the ACLU..........

Excellent Post Michaellee